CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Health Care Should Be Free
Growing up as a kid in Mexico my health care was not first priority. I am twenty-one now and well i wouldn't say healthy as a horse but healthy enough to live my life happy. I am free of any disease and virus, but not everybody has it that way. I could care less about going to the doctor since I am an average healthy adult and i don't want to pay high prices just for a visit. Some people aren't born as healthy as others and some take a heavy burden from that. Hospital bills will be the end of you.
I believe the government should pay our medical bills. Why should having a healthy life have a hefty price tag that most people can't afford? According to an article by procon.org, 62.1% of all U.S. bankruptcies in 2007 were related to medical expenses. The U.S. is one of the few, if not the only, developed nation in the world that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. Canada and Europe are two of the leading countries with free health care. There are some programs in the U.S. that provide health care for example Medicaid. Medicaid is only available for those with low income and everything will be covered. There have been a few presidents that have proposed universal health care and that were President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and most recently Barack Obama.
Just how far will one go to get free health care. Well on June 9th of 2011, Richard James Verone from North Carolina went into a bank and handed over a note over to the clerk. In the note it said he demanded $1 and he was claiming he was armed. That is exactly what he did according to abcNews. The clerk had called the police and said all he was doing was sitting down on the couch just waiting. That's because Richard knew police were coming, his intentions were to get arrested. Verone said, " I asked for $1 to show that my motives were medical, not monetary." Going by the report, Verone has a growth in his chest, two ruptures disks and no job. Verone went to further say, "I'm sort of a logical person and that was my logic, what I came up with, if it is called manipulation, then I guess I am manipulating the courts to get medical care."
I would not doubt it if more attempts have been made since then because the Federal Bureau of Prisons provides very decent medical care. If a prison has a condition that the hospital is not capable of handling, they will be shipped off to outside hospitals. Some even end up in world-class facilities like the famed Mayo Clinic.
Before I would care less whether we had free health care, but one day I met someone who opened my eyes. My current girlfriend, Amber, that I have been with for three years now is severely sick. As a child she had to endure a lot of operations due to a tumor behind her ear, operation on her eyes, and transfusions. Everything was paid for because of Medicare but once she hit eighteen, Medicare no longer covers you. The doctors told her she needed one more final operation to completely take out the tumor. The time for that tumor to be removed has come and has been growing.
Every single day she endures pain. Her eyesight is getting worse as time goes by and losing tasted buds. A couple of months ago I had to take her to the hospital due to severe bleeding from her ear. Doctors did what they can since they do not specialize in that field, and from the conditions and symptoms, she had two years at the most to live. Her body is shutting down slowly and her heart is giving out, is what the doctors said.
There is not a day that goes by that I wish she could be better. Even if I put all my money into it(Part-time Valet), and her family(low income) it still wouldn't be enough. The visits, medication, operation, and the long intensive care afterwards are too costly. Watching her die slowly has been a burden for me and i know there are more people like Amber who have no choice but to suffer. Her dreams of becoming a police officer can no longer be achieved or becoming a mom. We had to learn the hard way and she was not capable of carrying a child, her miscarriage really put her down. She wanted to leave something behind but now that is not possible.
Yes they may be long waiting lines if there is free health care but the one who are really sick need to be first priority. The government just makes up excuses, it can be done. I just hope it happens sooner.
As a citizen of Canada, I have access to free health-care. Almost everyone in this country agrees with free health-care. I realize in America, things are different with Obama-care and what not. However, I think that it is the responsibility of the government to provide well being to its tax-payers.
That is your opinion. I believe the government is useful for many things. Health-care is one of them. It is a sad day when private companies make massive amounts of money of the health problems of others. Yes there will be more tax, but in the long run, it's cheaper, and the moral thing to do.
Actually, its not my opinion, its just a fact. No commodity is actually free someone always has to pay for it. Also, the government serves you the more you have to serve it.
I believe the government is useful for many things. Health-care is one of them. It is a sad day when private companies make massive amounts of money of the health problems of others
Its a sad day when government monopolizes healthcare so that there is only one place you can go to.
Yes there will be more tax, but in the long run, it's cheaper, and the moral thing to do.
Its not cheaper, you're paying for the same thing, except you have to remember, government workers get many more benefits and any money that goes to government is open to corruption.
Its not moral to force people to buy and pay for something regardless of if they want it or not.
It's is not something they want or don't want, it's something they NEED. Health-care is a basic human necessity. And what's wrong with having a collective body support each-other? Everyone must pay their share for the collective good. And it is not ''buying'' it's paying taxes; you do not chose where your tax dollars go.
It's is not something they want or don't want, it's something they NEED. Health-care is a basic human necessity.
In your opinion it is.
And what's wrong with having a collective body support each-other?
Well 1st off it is immoral to force people to pay for your things, regardless of if you need them or not. Secondly, it is very inefficient to do this through government, any money that goes to the government is open to political corruption, government waste, over-sized government salaries, redundancy, paperwork, special interests, and other factors. Do what I do, donate time and money to charity.
Everyone must pay their share for the collective good. And it is not ''buying'' it's paying taxes; you do not chose where your tax dollars go.
It is buying. The government takes money from someone to pay for someone else's stuff, so whoever they took the money from is buying that product or service, not the government. Just because you don't choose where your tax dollars go to does not change anything.
What happened before there was Medicare in Canada? People either went on the dole, or lived with relatives who supported them. There were actually places called "poor houses" or "county homes" where the poor and elderly lived. There were soup kitchens and long lines. People who lived there could not afford health-care, so they went without. So because you want private Medicare you would be denying millions of citizens with their basic right to good health, just because they cannot pay their bills. This is something that should NEVER HAPPEN IN A DEVELOPED COUNTRY.
By not wanting a government monopoly and intrusion on my health I am not violating anyone else's right. When someone says "pay for my stuff or I'll have the IRS come down here and threaten you" then you are violating my rights. And the government pointing guns at me, forcing me to pay for other peoples stuff so that they can get re-elected on the whole "I care about the people (just not the ones who pay more taxes)" is something that should never happen in a developed country.
What about those who cannot afford? You would be denying them their basic rights to satisfy your petty political idea. This cannot be accepted in a democracy.
What about those who cannot afford? You would be denying them their basic rights to satisfy your petty political idea.
A right to freedom of speech imposes a cost on no one, a right to healthcare imposes a very large cost on people. If someone can't afford something you don't force everyone else to get it for them, especially through government which is very inefficient.
This cannot be accepted in a democracy.
Democracy dies when people start voting themselves a share of the treasury.
You are not having health-care imposed on you. If there is free health-care for all, then you can leave the country and go to Bhutan or some other less developed country.
And when people vote themselves part of the treasury, democracy does die. But putting some tax dollars towards health care instead of nuclear weapons makes sense. I am having a military imposed on my by your logic. In the US, only a fraction of the budget goes to Obama-care, in relation to the military, or corporate bailouts.
You are not having health-care imposed on you. If there is free health-care for all
Actually I am, The cost is being imposed on me regardless of if I want or need the service. If I don't want to get government health care and pay for everyone's as well, then I shouldn't be forced to.
then you can leave the country and go to Bhutan or some other less developed country.
Right after you move to North Korea.
And when people vote themselves part of the treasury, democracy does die. But putting some tax dollars towards health care instead of nuclear weapons makes sense.
Actually, it makes no sense. Health care is EXTREMELY expensive and is inefficient when run by government, every dollar you give them is open to corruption and a good portion of it will go their over bloated government salaries, benefits and pensions. It would be better to just let the market run it and give people a choice.
Also, nuclear weapons ensure mutual destruction, in other words, our enemies will think twice about nuking us if they know they will get nuked back.
I am having a military imposed on my by your logic. In the US, only a fraction of the budget goes to Obama-care, in relation to the military, or corporate bailouts.
Military makes up 20% of the budget, Military also includes all veterans and service benefits and foreign aid. Actually, entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicade make up 2/3rds of the budget. If you cut everything except for Social Programs and the interest on the debt you could not balance the budget.
As for a military being imposed on you, yes, there is. However, the cost of the military budget pretty much matches the corporate income tax and a normal military, hell, even OUR military without all the foreign aid and wars would cost almost nothing to run.
In essence, its an extremely small cost, where as a universal health care provider would be an enormous fee (and no Obamacare is not a universal provider, its just a public option aka: the government getting its foot in the door)
It is obvious to anyone with financial experience that the US military is VERY expensive. The cost is about 500 bn dollars annually. This is a fatuous waste of money. Also, it is apparent that you have said NOTHING for those who cannot afford health-care. You would leave them to wither away. Health-care is not as expensive as the military, and we need it. ENOUGH SAID.
It is obvious to anyone with financial experience that the US military is VERY expensive. The cost is about 500 bn dollars annually. This is a fatuous waste of money.
Again, a large portion is veterans benefits, foreign aid and war time costs. Cut war time costs and foreign aid and its not as high.
Also, it is apparent that you have said NOTHING for those who cannot afford health-care. You would leave them to wither away.
If they can't afford it, then that is their problem, just because they can't have it doesn't mean that it is their right to force other to pay for it. Also, government is much less efficient that private charities and the market. Also, government take over of these programs forces people to pay for them an dose them, health care is personal and the government should not be involved in our personal lives. http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/private-charity-infographic/
Health-care is not as expensive as the military, and we need it. ENOUGH SAID.
Then it is there problem? That is why the US is in such a mess. Because of people like you who believe that they are better than everybody else. When society as a whole is healthy and happy, then everyone benefits more than if society is squabbling and un-healthy. And capitalism institute? Really, that's just pure propaganda. I may as well send you a link to Marxists.org.
Then it is there problem? That is why the US is in such a mess. Because of people like you who believe that they are better than everybody else. When society as a whole is healthy and happy, then everyone benefits more than if society is squabbling and un-healthy
I don't believe I'm better than anyone else, we just believe that people being forced to pay for someone else's health care is wrong. I never said I was better than anyone else I just told you to keep your hands off of my money. Social programs are the oldest trick in the book, the government takes money from one person quietly, keeps some for themselves and then gives whats left to someone else flamboyantly.
Its not about who is better, its about people getting angry at people like you who feel they are entitle to someone else's money.
PS: Still never addressed the fact that cutting 100% of defense spending still wouldn't fix the budget crisis.
I never said cutting 100% of the defense budget would solve the problem, but perhaps instead of spending 500 billion dollars on warmongering, perhaps the government could spend that money helping its citizens.
Never said it largely went to veterans benefits, I just said that a good amount of the military budget is foreign aid, veterans benefits and the war effort. If you ended the wars and cut foreign aid the military budget would go down.
I am a libertarian, if you ended the wars and cut all foreign aid the budget would go down. As for the military industrial complex, if people were actually some what informed about what goes on we could easily elect someone who would end the wars.
If Americans want free Health-care, they could move to Canada, but they should be able to have equal opportunities in their home country. Also, not everyone can affair to move internationally.
It's is not something they want or don't want, it's something they NEED. Health-care is a basic human necessity.
Need is not a valid claim on the resources of others.
And what's wrong with having a collective body support each-other?
Nothing, so long as it is voluntary.
Everyone must pay their share for the collective good.
What is it that those who are net consumers of resources "pay", as their "fair share"?
Yes there will be more tax, but in the long run, it's cheaper,
No, it won't be cheaper (government programs never are), both because there is less competition for the money and because government makes political decisions on economic matters, not economic decisions.
and the moral thing to do.
Is it the function of government to enforce an active morality?
What if they were to deem that homosexuality were immoral, and punish it?
or mandatory, and enforce it?
What if they were to decide that wearing makeup were immoral?
To give government the authority to enforce a morality, is to give them the authority to enforce a morality that you disagree with.
You claim that it will not save money if universal health-care is instated? However do you realize that about 2/3rds of US bankruptcies are due to unpaid medical bills? Do you realize what that number of bankruptcies does to the economy? It is severely detrimental. This cannot be argued. Also, I'm sure that you have private coverage, but for millions of people who do not have private coverage, they must go without. Should we ignore our responsibilities and leave these people to go bankrupt, or ignore their health problems? The answer is NO. No one should be left behind. Countries do better when everyone is happy and healthy. Furthermore, if this is not convincing enough, take a look at any country with a successful universal health-care system. Do you see these problems associated with the cost on society that you claim? No, you do not. And if you want to talk about un-fair burdens on the tax-payer, let us take a look at the all consuming American Military Industrial Complex. Enough said
You claim that it will not save money if universal health-care is instated? However do you realize that about 2/3rds of US bankruptcies are due to unpaid medical bills? Do you realize what that number of bankruptcies does to the economy? It is severely detrimental.
And adding trillions in new debt is more detrimental to the economy. Therefore the savings, money-wise, is at best negligible. At worst, the further skewing of the incentives within the medical market (caused by government interference) will cause the price to rise, or the quality to suffer.
What cost-saving (not price saving) measures does universal healthcare include?
Please explain how these measures will reduce costs.
Also, I'm sure that you have private coverage, but for millions of people who do not have private coverage, they must go without. Should we ignore our responsibilities and leave these people to go bankrupt, or ignore their health problems?
Any responsibility is moral, not legal. It is not the responsibility of the government to enforce an active morality, nor do they have the authority to do so. If you give them that authority, you allow for them to enforce a morality that you find disagreeable.
The answer is NO. No one should be left behind.
As private citizens, WE have the right to start, or contribute to paying for the medical bills or insurance of those who cannot afford it, but we have no right to force others to contribute their resources to causes which WE feel are worthwhile. They, likewise, have no right to force us to contribute to causes which THEY feel are worthwhile.
Countries do better when everyone is happy and healthy.
True, but the US government is limited in the actions it may take to promote such a condition. Furthermore, every interference in any market that it has attempted, so far, has had net negative effects on both the specific market with which it has interfered and in the economy as a whole (federal reserve act, new deal, great society/war on poverty, community reinvestment act).
Furthermore, if this is not convincing enough, take a look at any country with a successful universal health-care system. Do you see these problems associated with the cost on society that you claim? No, you do not.
Time as a Price
"Canadian emergency rooms are infamous for their long wait times.[1] A recent study has shown that in most of them the average wait time exceeds 6 hours and sometimes reaches up to 23 hours."
The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World
"Although no country with a national health care system is contemplating abandoning uni- versal coverage, the broad and growing trend is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market-oriented features."
And if you want to talk about un-fair burdens on the tax-payer, let us take a look at the all consuming American Military Industrial Complex. Enough said
Unjust, not unfair. There is a difference.
Were it up to me, I would get rid of the Military Industrial Complex yesterday, and reduce the American military to its proper function, defending the United states, not policing the world. So we are on the same side in that argument. :)
I understand why some American publications criticize the Canadian health-care system, but as a Canadian, I have a first hand account of the system, and I must say I love it and am proud of it. The wait times are slightly longer than if you are a millionaire in the US, but I would rather wait another 30 minutes than be hit with a 50 000 dollar medical bill. Without rights, people have nothing, and the right to good, affordable medical care is indispensable in the 21st century. Also, only about 10% of our GDP is invested in Medicare, and this creates many good paying long term jobs for our citizens.
Yes, Medicare does cost money, but the fact is, people WANT Medicare. Canada is a democracy and the minute any elected official starts talking about privatizing Medicare, their popularity ratings plummet and they usually loose the next election. The same story is usually repeated in other countries with Universal Health-care.
In a way yes, but you must realize paying taxes is a lot better than getting a 50 000 dollar medical bill. These taxes also go to other things like infrastructure, education, etc. :D
Everyone, without exception, needs medical attention at a certain point in their lives, this is why we do not mind paying marginally more tax. Plus this tax is higher for a number of reasons besides Medicare.
If you want REAL reform, there are several better ways to go about it.
We could remove the AMA monopoly on the licensing of doctors. The monopoly is implemented at the state level, and so must be repealed there. This would increase the number of doctors and medical schools available, reducing the cost of both care, and the education for getting a medical degree..
100 Years of Medical Robbery
" In the days of its founding AMA was much more open--at its conferences and in its publications--about its real goal: building a government-enforced monopoly for the purpose of dramatically increasing physician incomes. It eventually succeeded, becoming the most formidable labor union on the face of the earth."
We could encourage state legislatures to remove the protections on local insurance markets, by allowing competition across state lines. This allows more competition in the insurance market, lowering insurance costs.
We could require the prices of procedures to be posted in health care venues, so that consumers could shop around for the best prices.
We could allow everyone to deduct all the income spent on health insurance from taxes, remove the tax exemption from employer health plans and reduce the payroll tax. This encourages the employer to pay more and for the employee to buy their own insurance, independent of their job.
We could make it easier to open tax-free health savings accounts, increase the limits to save and allow all money spent on medical care to be deducted from taxes.
These are just a few suggestions, any of which would go further to actually reducing costs, than the ACA will.
I'm sure I'll think of three more, right after I hit "submit" :P
I will admit, universal health-care will only work if there is an effective and efficient programme in place. However, privatization will not work and here's why. Like it or not, businesses care about one thing, the bottom line, and if it takes laxing back care, or taking un-safe shortcuts to increase the bottom line, they will do this. Yes, some companies ''take care'' of their customers, but this is just business, and if throwing those same customers in a ditch would increase the bottom line, those companies would do that as well. Also, what you out-line is a good idea, but it is not a permanent solution, eventually nepotism and money-mongering will take over and the whole system will turn into a private bureaucracy. You must remember examples of countries with successful universal health-care systems, and I realize that in the US Obama care is turning into a disaster, that is because of poor leadership and an un-believable national mess.
What is the marginal tax rate in Canada, including VATs, etc.?
Enforcing the contracts prevents companies from mistreating those customers who actually read the contract before signing. Those who don't read the contract, deserve what they get.
eventually nepotism and money-mongering will take over and the whole system will turn into a private bureaucracy.
Not if they want to stay in business. If you mistreat customers, you competitor will gladly take them from you, in a free market.
I realize that in the US Obama care is turning into a disaster, that is because of poor leadership and an un-believable national mess.
Yup, Obamacare is just the latest of the messes, starting with the federal reserve act, all with the goal of protecting the public, or helping the needy, but all having the opposite effect.
In Canada, we pay a 13% sales tax on everything, and then we pay an income tax depending on income level, and then there is a property tax which is determined by the municipal government. Not too many people complain about tax here, it's usually because it goes to things like Medicare, education etc. Yes, I do think we pay a bit more tax then our American counter-parts, but most of us realize that we have a population of only about 34 million, so we don't mind paying slightly more. And on the competitors in privatized health-care, I would say you are correct for the first few decades of operation, but after those decades are up, one or two of the corporations would become so powerful, that a bionopoly or monopoly would form.
I prefer Stefan Molyneux's demonstration, but i can't find it in a pinch. Here is a good one by Rand, that explains the difficulties of forming monopolies. Clip is cut, but the relevant information is there.
This demonstration has valid points, but if we take an historic look to this, we can see clearly that monopolies exist/ existed in free market societies.
Also, binopolies are much more prevalent. A binopoly is when two corporations control everything in their market demographics and tend to match each other in many ways, i.e. Bell and Rogers, or in the US, Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin
Your link mentions "standard oil" which was never a monopoly, even under the federal standards. It had no less than 150 competitors in the oil market and had driven prices down for the consumer by the time it was broken up.
There is a difference between "illegal" and "harmful".
Coercive monopolies are destructive, but have never existed without government help.
Non coercive monopolies are beneficial to the consumer, in that they supply the consumer with demanded goods at the lowest market price possible.
(from another, related debate)
Non coercive monopolies are benign.
International Harvester (government assisted monopoly)
"Thus, in creating the Federal Farm Board, the precursor of New Deal schemes to prop up farm prices, Hoover appointed leading farm group representatives to the board, and named Alexander Legge, head of International Harvester, as its chairman. To Burner this was an anomaly, and he writes in some wonderment of the altruism Legge displayed in his new job: "Although he was an important businessman, Legge's sympathy lay with the farmers," and he pushed aggressively for farm price supports. The fact that International Harvester was the country's largest manufacturer of farm machinery and therefore benefited from these supports does not seem to register with Burner."
"The American Tobacco holding company was broken up by the Supreme Court because of some vague intent to monopolize (again, as evidenced through mergers) but, like Standard Oil, there was a total absence of demonstrable (economic) injury to consumers of tobacco products."
" It never achieved a monopoly (in 1911, the year of the Supreme Court decision, Standard Oil had roughly 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf) that would enable it to monopolistically boost consumer prices."
"The federal government attempted to use federal antitrust laws to break up U.S. Steel in 1911, but that effort ultimately failed. Time and competitors have, however, accomplished nearly the same thing. In its first full year of operation, U.S. Steel made 67 percent of all the steel produced in the United States. It now produces less than 10 percent."
This last, is supporting evidence that the market does not favor "monopolies".
Some of the individuals mentioned in the ehow article lowered prices for consumers, fighting against government subsidized competitors who wished to keep prices high. These competitors tried to pass legislation to that effect, reducing competition in the market, and increasing prices to the end consumer ( and increasing their own profits, at consumer expense)
The attempt to reduce or to eliminate predatory pricing is also likely to reduce or eliminate competitive pricing beneficial to consumers.
— Harold Demsetz
Any attempt to monopolistically control prices invites competitors into the market to undercut those prices. Additionally each good on the market must also compete with all similar goods, and indeed all other goods, for the consumers' money.
In Canada, we have Bell and Rogers. They are a binopoly. Yes, there are other smaller telecommunications companies, but they rely on Bell and Rogers for the telecommunications infrastructure; these companies are also routinely attacked by these companies in the form of attempted hostile takeovers. Also, most of these Monopolies were during the 20th century. Now there is widespread corruption, so a monopoly is possible.
In Canada, we have Bell and Rogers. They are a binopoly. Yes, there are other smaller telecommunications companies, but they rely on Bell and Rogers for the telecommunications infrastructure; these companies are also routinely attacked by these companies in the form of attempted hostile takeovers.
Who prevents them from putting in their own infrastructure?
Government protected monopoly.
"Given Canada’s relatively small market, it’s often asserted that Canada’s telecommunications industry falls under Mises’ category of a natural monopoly created by geographical constraints. But this ignores the fact that foreign ownership is restricted by the Telecommunications Act. Remove these limits and we wouldn’t have to worry about the price gouging of big telecommunications companies. For what we have right now, to use Mises’ words, is monopoly interventionism. "
So you're arguing that monopolies happen in Canada because we are ''a small market''. Bu this logic, a health-care monopoly would be possible in Canada. this is why we need Medicare.
No, I'm arguing that the binopoly you cited, presumably as evidence that monopolies tend to form in a free market, is actually enabled by the protectionist policy of the government of Canada.
This also supports my assertion that coercive monopolies require the intervention of government to be maintained for any length of time.
The fact that services cost resources is not an opinion. It is a fact.
As to It being cheaper in the long run, Economics says different. If you reduce the opportunity for profit in a good or service (G/S) then you have fewer individuals willing to supply that G/S. If you lower the supply, you increase the cost. Whether that cost is in actual money, through taxes, or in quality or time, as a nationalized HC system does ( http://mises.org/daily/4719 ).
As to the morality, It is not the function of government to dictate morality. Government is, by definition, a political entity. Morality is, by definition, a social construct. To have government dictate morality, is to have government control society (people) and not the other way around. This is a very dangerous road to travel and , historically, has NEVER ended well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust)
You broke Goodwin's law. You now forfeit the right to win this argument. This happens when people mention Hitler or Nazis in an argument that has nothing to do with Hitler or Nazis.
62.1% of all U.S. bankruptcies in 2007 were related to medical expenses. That is not helpful to the economy. You do not need an economics degree to see that.
And the high cost of medical care is due, in large part, to government interference into the market for care. Nationally, this is in the form of Medicare and state Medicaid subsidies, and on the state level in the form of the legally enforced monopoly on medical licensing granted to the AMA.
Medical insurance being connected to one's job, is also a result of government capping wages, and removing taxes on benefits, incentivizing employers to supply Health insurance in lieu of wages; government interference.
The rest of the high cost is due to the "third party' payment system of the insurance companies, and the way that drugs are approved. People don't see, and thus care little, what their routine care costs.
Government interference is the problem, It cannot, also be the solution.
your health care isnt free my friend. Just because they bundle in health care costs in your tax bill doesnt make it free. US citizens who are fairly healthy pay a MUCH lower rate than you do. Canadians pay on average close to 4000 per person per year thru taxes for health coverage that doesnt include prescription drugs or dental; both of which has to be paid for thru a private insurer.
My health care is about 1800 a year thru my employer. Plus, I dont have to wait weeks to see a specialist like Canadians do. The wait time is awful. Canadians are brainwashed into thinking they get free health care. Unless of course they dont plan on working their entire life.
You're brainwashed into thinking that free-markets are the solution to everything. You cannot tell me that I am wrong about what goes on in my country because I live there and you do not. Canadians choose not to accept 50 000 dollar medical bills, so we pay a bit more tax to our very efficient Medicare system. Please note: this tax is not higher just because of Medicare, we also have a small population, so we need to pay more per person. Also, the wait time in Canada is not as bad as you depict it to be. At least we do not have to die because we cannot afford to get our illnesses checked.
It does work, it's a matter of priorities in the system we currently have. Tax money could and should pay for everyone's hospital bills. There are things of lesser importance that gets much more government grants.
What a contortion of liberty, to say that ones life depending on the arbitrary will of others is freedom.
That characterization is a contortion of the argument.
Your argument implies that the inaction of one unjustly deprives another of his life. This implies that NOT providing another with property which is rightly yours, is the equivalent of taking that property from another. This is not the case.
Freedom, and liberty is not "access to the resources of others", it is "using one's own means to effect one's own ends, without actively interfering with another's right to do the same". Not acting to help another is not the same as actively harming another.
I think health care should be free, as the old quote goes (I cant remember who first said it) the mark of a civilized society is how well it treats it's weakest members, one of the weakest members being the sick and infirm
Only things free are those that are abundant and require no human action to obtain them such as air or sun light. Everything else has value because it is a scarce resource; thus, since all human demands are potentially infinite, this must give these scarce resources value; therefore, supply and demand determine value.
Not crooked at all. Trade is impossible without an medium of exchange. How would anything be traded if nothing had value? Trade is exchange for value for value, and money is just the most effective method to trade. Trade is dependent on the exchange of scarce resources. Thus is why nobody trades air or sunlight, because it is free and no need for human action.
Wrong again. They were simply too greedy. If stupid people, people whose mental view is narrow and short and are immature of mind, have a choice of getting a lot of power and everything they could ever want you think they would let the change just go away? No, they would take it all and keep it until they can or until it occurs how wrong they'd been the entire time.
Trade and money are worthless. It really does not take much to understand why. But then I understand why you, and many others, cannot understand it; humanity, you and many others included, is too stupid, or is too immature; moneyless society is far too advanced to be realized in current time, as is obvious.
Unfortunately, this argument is going nowhere because you haven't given any reasons as how an system without trade or money would work except lame rheortic using terms like greed, stupid, mental and immature whereas as I have given clear reasons as why these are essential to human prosperity and progress.
That's the thing, it has never even been tried. Sure, there have been ideas about similar in the past, but always, every single time, greed got in the way.
It wasn't greed that got in the way, it was the inability of any system but the price system to communicate the sheer volume of information about what resources should go where, and what (and who) should produce goods and services.
There was a study that calculated the amount of time for several of the fastest computers on earth to determine the needs and demands of a relatively small group of people and commodities. The time to calculate was something like 3x the age of the universe. Central planning CANNOT WORK. No central authority can possibly have enough information about local and individual conditions to calculate your needs as efficiently as you communicate them through the price (in money, time and labor) you actually pay for resources. The modern central banking system has removed a small part of that communication system (by setting interest rates) and has virtually destroyed the US economy.
It wasn't greed that got in the way, it was the inability of any system but the price system to communicate the sheer volume of information about what resources should go where, and what (and who) should produce goods and services.
This is just so narrow-minded.
What resources go where comes from demand. You do understand what demand is? Some people wanting or needing certain resources, they send their order to the right place from where the resources are delivered. Money has nothing to do with anything in this process, even though currently it is attached to all of it, slowing things down and giving extra work.
Your view of reality is very messed up, you literally do not even know how presently things work. People and their needs determine how much of something is needed, not money.
Central planning CANNOT WORK
Who the fuck has been talking about central planning?!?! I have not. You're extremely biased, you cannot think objectively because of it.
To support the sheer number of humans on earth, it is. Unless you advocate starving 99% of the population, then trade is necessary.
Even with trade, when the world was largely agrarian, it took 99% of the population producing foodstuffs to feed 100% of the population. The specialization that trade enables has allowed us to feed a vastly larger percentage (99%) of the population with a vastly smaller labor force (1%).
To support the sheer number of humans on earth, it is. Unless you advocate starving 99% of the population, then trade is necessary.
Are you kidding me? Products will always be produced for the people. You think not being able to acquire food to stay alive because there simply is no money to buy it is not starving to death? As I said, the products will always be there, ready to be used but presently they will only be used if they are paid for. What is the point of making something if it will not be used? What is the point of making something right now just to have it lie somewhere for years until it finds a use? All the while there are people who need it, but can't because they do not have money.
Money has nothing to do with population control. If you haven't noticed then the number is increasing and conditions are getting worse.
Also, how could there be starvation if everything people need is constantly being produced to be used by the people for free?
Even with trade, when the world was largely agrarian, it took 99% of the population producing foodstuffs to feed 100% of the population. The specialization that trade enables has allowed us to feed a vastly larger percentage (99%) of the population with a vastly smaller labor force (1%).
You literally do not know what you are talking about. This, right now, is the present not the past. That which was in the past does not apply anymore, or are you saying humanity is still as stupid? A large portion still is but not as much.
>>"Products will always be produced for the people....Also, how could there be starvation if everything people need is constantly being produced to be used by the people for free?"
Who is producing these products?
Why are they producing the products?
How could they be produced without trade?
How could they get from producers to consumers without trade?
>>"You literally do not know what you are talking about. This, right now, is the present not the past. That which was in the past does not apply anymore, or are you saying humanity is still as stupid? ..."
I am saying that neither human nature, nor the laws of supply and demand have changed. The only way to take advantage of the increased efficiency of production, afforded by the division of labor, is through trade. And that the most efficient way to trade is with a commodity medium of exchange, which has been spontaneously chosen by the mutual consent of the traders in the market.
Who is presently producing the products? There ya go.
Why are they producing the products?
Because it is necessary, because everyone depends on them, because they want to?
How could they be produced without trade?
Wtf??? Some produce resources, others deliver them, those who received them turn them into products. Why? Because it has to be done, because if it is not done everything would fall apart. Seriously, wtf? You couldn't come up with that on your own?
How could they get from producers to consumers without trade?
Okay, this is far too pathetic and ridiculous to deserve an answer. You have a brain, don't you? Then use it!
I am saying that neither human nature, nor the laws of supply and demand have changed.
Human nature... is equivalent of "I believe because the bible says so". Just an analogy.
Supply and demand are necessary for our advancement, obviously. Supply and demand themselves have nothing to do with a medium of exchange.
You don't produce things for trade, you produce them for use.
The only way to take advantage of the increased efficiency of production, afforded by the division of labor, is through trade. And that the most efficient way to trade is with a commodity medium of exchange, which has been spontaneously chosen by the mutual consent of the traders in the market.
Wrong, so wrong. Trade is not necessary, I've explained how it would be without it. People work, produce, for themselves and others, for use and for free. Even now, if no one worked, everything would fall apart, as I've said many times.
Who is presently producing the products? There ya go.
...
Wtf??? Some produce resources, others deliver them, those who received them turn them into products. Why? Because it has to be done, because if it is not done everything would fall apart. *
"It would just happen" (which is the gist of your answer) is not an answer.
And here starts the ad homs:
Seriously, wtf? You couldn't come up with that on your own?
Supply and demand are necessary for our advancement, obviously. Supply and demand themselves have nothing to do with a medium of exchange.
The price mechanism, made possible by a common medium of exchange, is the communication system whereby demand is communicated to the supplier.
You don't produce things for trade, you produce them for use.
You produce those things which you are better at producing, to trade for those things which you produce less efficiently, or are unable to produce at all. It is called the division of labor, and it allows for people to produce more wealth together than they would produce without the trade and the incentive to trade.
Wrong, so wrong. Trade is not necessary, I've explained how it would be without it. People work, produce, for themselves and others, for use and for free. Even now, if no one worked, everything would fall apart, as I've said many times.
You have described what it would look like, but not how it would actually work.
In your system there is but one incentive, shared by all members of society, that being "the common good, even to the detriment of the good of self".
In free market capitalism, there is no need for any incentive but what each individual deems a worthy incentive to produce. Additionally, one who does not produce is unable to take unfair advantage of the production of others for very long.
To quote Adam Smith:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
The primary function of a medium of exchange is to enable traders to calculate the relative value of resources and thus what it would profit them to produce that resource. If there is no profit to producing the resource, there is no incentive. This causes shortages of that resource, increasing the relative value and increasing the profit. This increases incentive and the individual decides to produce that resource. It is a self-regulating system, which causes resources to be produced, based directly upon the demand (as expressed by traders in the market, through price) for that resource.
Please explain, using only logic, Who should decide what resources should be produced, by whom, and what incentives to produce would exist, without a medium of exchange.
Look up the definition of crooked, you seem to need it (theres more than just one, and there's also a thing called context). Then read my response again.
The primary function of a medium of exchange is to enable traders to calculate the relative value of resources and thus what it would profit them to produce that resource.
If resources are needed then they should be already available, if not yet available then once they are produced, without putting a thwarting factor like "pay up first, then you can use it" in the equation. The only real value of resources is that they are necessary for our continuance and progress.
If there is no profit to producing the resource, there is no incentive.
A very narrow-minded and stupid view.
The incentive is - if no one works, if no one produces them, then everything will fall apart. Also the fact that others depend on them producing those resources and products.
If people worked for money, because of money, and once it was removed everything would fall apart. But the people would still be there, still capable of working, even without money. You get where I'm going with this? I hope you do.
Doing things, anything, for profit is living for money and living for money is a worthless life. Do you do all you do because of money, for money? I myself certainly do not, in fact I do nothing for money.
This causes shortages of that resource, increasing the relative value and increasing the profit. This increases incentive and the individual decides to produce that resource. It is a self-regulating system, which causes resources to be produced, based directly upon the demand (as expressed by traders in the market, through price) for that resource.
The only incentive people should have for producing resources should be because it is necessary, and because they want to, and because others, and everything, depends on them, literally. Even now it is so, the only difference is that presently all that is clouded by money, the first thing people see is money. Money is not what keeps us alive and in existence, and advancing. If you work for money, because of money, then you are living for the wrong reasons.
Please explain, using only logic
Something I've done the whole time. I say to you, you use logic, but not just that, your mental view is very short and narrow - broaden and lengthen it, at least try.
Who should decide what resources should be produced,
Even now there is such a thing as demand. You think that would not be there then?
by whom
So stupid a question I won't even answer this.
and what incentives to produce would exist, without a medium of exchange.
This I already answered.
These questions you asked... Why could you not answer them on your own? 'Cause the answers are so very simple and logical.
Crooked, as in askew? Ok. I withdraw that argument, but reserve the right to use it if someone suggests enforcement of morality by the state.
If resources are needed then they should be already available, if not yet available then once they are produced, without putting a thwarting factor like "pay up first, then you can use it" in the equation.
The price system is the communication system by which the needs of those supplied, are communicated. You have still not described the system you propose to replace it.
Something must be produced, before it can be used.
How does the producer know what must be produced?
How does he keep from wasting scarce resources, producing products, for which there is no need, or desire?
The only incentive people should have for producing resources should be because it is necessary, and because they want to, and because others, and everything, depends on them, literally.
How do you propose to mentally control people to be concerned only with the welfare of others, and to ignore any privation or discomfort to themselves?
Even now it is so, the only difference is that presently all that is clouded by money, the first thing people see is money. Money is not what keeps us alive and in existence, and advancing. If you work for money, because of money, then you are living for the wrong reasons.
This seems to be your central theme, but it includes a moral judgement, "you are living for the wrong reasons". People have a right to live for whatever reasons they see as worthy.
What right do you have to impose your moral value system upon others?
Something I've done the whole time. I say to you, you use logic, but not just that, your mental view is very short and narrow - broaden and lengthen it, at least try.
No, you have explained the form, but not the mechanisms by which the system would function.
Me: Who should decide what resources should be produced,
You: Even now there is such a thing as demand. You think that would not be there then?
Me: by whom
You: So stupid a question I won't even answer this.
I have explained (and described) the mechanism whereby the demand is communicated to the suppliers (the price system).
Your answer was essentially, "it will just happen, because it just happens now." But it does not "just happen" now. There is a communication system in place to relay that information. I ask again:
How is the demand communicated, and by whom, in a system without the price mechanism?
These questions you asked... Why could you not answer them on your own? 'Cause the answers are so very simple and logical.
(Ignoring the ad hom)
You have not answered the questions, you you have given platitudes and evasions from the answers to the questions.
"It will just work" is not an answer. You must describe HOW it will work.
Nothing is free, every resource has a value and worth. At the end of the day, someone will ALWAYS have to pay for it, forcing someone else to pay for your stuff is immoral.
That's right, nothing is free, but everything should be free.
Everything has a price because our civilization is run by greed which comes directly from stupidity and ignorance.
The only worth every resource has is how it contributes to humanity's progress, and that's all there is to resources.
If people actually began using their raisins and began thinking about how things really are and how to improve everything then money would quickly be abolished. Oh yes, it's that again - money - it is negative to human progress.
You really shouldn't be talking about what is immoral or not as you completely lack the sense of right and wrong, I mean c'mon, you're a fucking drug user, probably an addict. Or is this all you go about drugs, so often, just a show to make yourself look "cool"? All you are doing with that immature fussing is make yourself look like an idiot, which you obviously are in truth.
You are living in a world you made up in your mind and you believe it to be true, you haven't and probably cannot look at the real world without bias. You are pathetic.
You cannot figure out how things would work without money? You either are, as I've already stated - an idiot. Or you're just another greedy fuck, and that would also explain why you have such stupid opinions.
That's right, nothing is free, but everything should be free.
Everything has a price because our civilization is run by greed which comes directly from stupidity and ignorance.
No, its because every resource has a value.
The only worth every resource has is how it contributes to humanity's progress, and that's all there is to resources.
A resources has value based on how much of it there is, how big a demand there is for it and what it is used for. It has nothing to do with humanities progress.
If people actually began using their raisins and began thinking about how things really are and how to improve everything then money would quickly be abolished. Oh yes, it's that again - money - it is negative to human progress.
Yes, the idea that simplified trade is so negative.
You really shouldn't be talking about what is immoral or not as you completely lack the sense of right and wrong, I mean c'mon, you're a fucking drug user, probably an addict. Or is this all you go about drugs, so often, just a show to make yourself look "cool"? All you are doing with that immature fussing is make yourself look like an idiot, which you obviously are in truth.
I don't lack a sense of right and wrong because I smoke pot. If you think drug use is about "looking cool" that congrats, you are very misinformed.
User =/= Addict
Me smoking or eating a harmless plant does not make me an idiot.
You are living in a world you made up in your mind and you believe it to be true, you haven't and probably cannot look at the real world without bias. You are pathetic.
In my mind? Ha! You've even admitted that you're entered ideology is based on a fantasy world you made up. Back to name calling, eh?
You cannot figure out how things would work without money? You either are, as I've already stated - an idiot. Or you're just another greedy fuck, and that would also explain why you have such stupid opinions.
Actually I can, it would go back to the barter system or a a marxist style world. I am not greedy, I donate my time and money to charity, you likely do not.
Maybe you should try having some actually points instead of calling everyone an idiot.
And the reason every resource has a value is because they contribute to humanity's progress, they enable our survival and advancement, there is no money involved in any of it, or rather should not be.
A resources has value based on how much of it there is, how big a demand there is for it and what it is used for. It has nothing to do with humanities progress.
It has everything to do with humanity's progress. Without survival there can be no progress. The funny thing is advancing our knowledge, and skills in creating new things, is necessary for our survival. Demand comes from what is needed.
Yes, the idea that simplified trade is so negative.
You're still not getting it - no trade at all, anywhere! Unless you regard the production of resources and their use for our progress as trading - we make them and use them, and in return we live on. Everything is done, is produced for one purpose - our progress; our survival. Right now everything is produced and made for the exact same reason, but, if there is no money given in return for all that then all of it will go to waste, none of it will be used, even though it would be necessary to use them. Or you think that's not how it would be? Then answer this, there are resources available and they are needed, but there is no money to give in return for them and never will be, will those resources be used?
You've even admitted that you're entered ideology is based on a fantasy world you made up.
Where and when exactly did I say that? I can answer this for you - nowhere and never. And I make things up?
Back to name calling, eh?
Name calling? I don't call names, I observe and conclude.
Actually I can, it would go back to the barter system or a a marxist style world.
It would not. You're stuck with the books you've read and cannot think outside the walls you've created based on them. Pathetic.
I am not greedy.
Yet you approve the system that promotes greed.
I donate my time and money to charity, you likely do not.
Way to go wasting your life on something that shouldn't even be needed, as everything should be free for everyone anyway.
Of course I do not, I don't have enough even for myself, and the little I do I should give away? Are you fucking high? Oh, wait... you probably are.
Maybe you should try having some actually points instead of calling everyone an idiot.
And the reason every resource has a value is because they contribute to humanity's progress, they enable our survival and advancement, there is no money involved in any of it, or rather should not be.
Not because of "progress" but because it has use. Everything has some sort of use, thus, everything has value.
You're still not getting it - no trade at all, anywhere!
No trade eh? Well, that pretty much leaves the option of a centralized economy where all production and resources are gathered together and then distributed.
Right now everything is produced and made for the exact same reason, but, if there is no money given in return for all that then all of it will go to waste, none of it will be used, even though it would be necessary to use them.
You act like on a daily basis we produce a ton of stuff, then we just throw it all out because of money.
Where and when exactly did I say that? I can answer this for you - nowhere and never. And I make things up?
Actually you did, it was on a debate about currency and you were talking about how you image a fantasy world with no money.
Name calling? I don't call names, I observe and conclude.
You observed I had a different view and concluded I was an idiot. I observe this and conclude that you are indeed an asshole.
It would not. You're stuck with the books you've read and cannot think outside the walls you've created based on them. Pathetic.
Marxism, in general terms of speaking, is a society with centralized means of production, distribution and no currency. It is rather pathetic how you are unable to say how it is different besides saying that everyone either knows to much or is just wrong (with no evidence or reason of course)
Way to go wasting your life on something that shouldn't even be needed, as everything should be free for everyone anyway.
I give some of my time and money to those who need a little help, and you call me greedy and say I am wasting time? Oh the irony.
Of course I do not, I don't have enough even for myself, and the little I do I should give away? Are you fucking high? Oh, wait... you probably are.
Back to the "you must be stoned all the time because you happen to smoke" way of thinking again, eh? You have a computer, you have internet, you have food, you have shelter, sounds like you have enough for yourself.
Not everyone, just those who actually are.
You have a very large ego, but a very small amount of knowledge.
Not because of "progress" but because it has use. Everything has some sort of use, thus, everything has value.
The value resources have has nothing to do with money, that's what I'm saying.
No trade eh? Well, that pretty much leaves the option of a centralized economy where all production and resources are gathered together and then distributed.
Isn't it exactly so even now? I'm sure you've heard of shops and supermarkets and other similar places. You know... the places where everything is gathered together so it could be easily distributed, one place from where everyone could receive the things they need.
So yeah, everything would be gathered into one place from where they then are distributed, just as it is now. With no trade the only difference there'd be would be that there'd be no fussing with money, or any fussing other then delivering the goods. Products and resources are gathered, then the order/demand comes, then the things are delivered, the end. No money, no trade, anywhere.
Right now resources and products are delivered from where they are made to warehouses, from where they move to further warehouses or directly to the customers or shops, or to further warehouses till they still will go to shops or customers. You think this process would be any different?
You act like on a daily basis we produce a ton of stuff, then we just throw it all out because of money.
I gave a valid example, assuming an instance like that were to occur. It is only possible with a medium of exchange.
Actually you did, it was on a debate about currency and you were talking about how you image a fantasy world with no money.
Oh, I remember that... It was about having the ability to imagine a world without money - something I actually can do. That was all it was.
I did not say I made up a world in my head and based my opinions on it. You might want to find that debate and reread everything I said there 'cause clearly you are interpreting it as you want to not as it is.
You observed I had a different view and concluded I was an idiot. I observe this and conclude that you are indeed an asshole.
I observed your arguments which were really really really stupid. Then the conclusion - you're an idiot.
And why are you talking to my asshole? I thought you were smart enough to understand that whatever it can say is of no substance other than resulting in a smelly room.
Marxism...
If you haven't yet noticed I do not care for previously made up things like "Marxism", "Capitalism", "Communism", or anything else like. Then there's the calling you're a communist, a fascist, a liberal, etc. etc... I'm a human, and that's all I am.
I give some of my time and money to those who need a little help, and you call me greedy and say I am wasting time? Oh the irony.
Hypocrite much, or rather, messed up much? You claim to not be greedy yet you approve the system that promotes greed.
Back to the "you must be stoned all the time because you happen to smoke" way of thinking again, eh?
Again? I can't remember doing that before, so no, not again.
You have a computer, you have internet, you have food, you have shelter, sounds like you have enough for yourself.
Assuming you know everything about me, and how my life is. That's rather stupid... Good, at least you're keeping this consistent.
You have a very large ego, but a very small amount of knowledge.
A large ego, me? No. I just know who I am and what I'm capable of. I know my potential.
Knowledge? I know enough to make the right conclusions. You on the other hand might have more knowledge, you might know more insignificant details, but you are completely blinded by all of it. You cannot see which of that knowledge is good and which is bad.
It seems to me that whatever amount of knowledge one can have it does not make one smart unless the person has the ability to view it all objectively.
I think I've said it before, I'm sure I have. I view the world unbiased and objectively. I look at everything as it is, not based on some previously made up rules that most of humanity likes following without questioning the rules themselves.
The value resources have has nothing to do with money, that's what I'm saying.
It has nothing to do with money, its value is based on supply and demand. However, money comes into play because money has value (when it is backed up by something) and that is why you can purchase resources with money.
Isn't it exactly so even now? I'm sure you've heard of shops and supermarkets and other similar places. You know... the places where everything is gathered together so it could be easily distributed, one place from where everyone could receive the things they need.
So yeah, everything would be gathered into one place from where they then are distributed, just as it is now. With no trade the only difference there'd be would be that there'd be no fussing with money, or any fussing other then delivering the goods. Products and resources are gathered, then the order/demand comes, then the things are delivered, the end. No money, no trade, anywhere.
Yes, but those shops and supermarkets are privately owned. Farmers grow food, food companies buy it, supermarkets buy the food and then sell it to people. There are many different parties operating in this. In a centralized economy you would have a non-private entity controlling all means of production and distributing everything. You do not take into account that an economy of this style would be have to controlled and monitored, which is impossible to do. The economy is not a few people doing the same thing, it is billions of people make small transactions constantly, for your system to function it would all have to be centrally controlled by a single entity. You just take money out of the equation and act like nothing will change.
Oh, I remember that... It was about having the ability to imagine a world without money - something I actually can do. That was all it was.
I did not say I made up a world in my head and based my opinions on it.
You can imagine anything, it actually working is another. Your entire society is based on the idea that once you take money out of the equation everything will continue, that might work in an extremely basic theory that doesn't include any sense of reality, but ok, you can use it.
I observed your arguments which were really really really stupid. Then the conclusion - you're an idiot.
I could very easily say the same thing about your ideas and argument, considering you really can't support your view very well.
If you haven't yet noticed I do not care for previously made up things like "Marxism", "Capitalism", "Communism", or anything else like. Then there's the calling you're a communist, a fascist, a liberal, etc. etc... I'm a human, and that's all I am.
Marxism: A money less society with centralized means of production and common ownership. This sounds like your society, regardless of your hate for general definitions of types of economies, your idea is very similar to Marxism.
Hypocrite much, or rather, messed up much? You claim to not be greedy yet you approve the system that promotes greed.
It doesn't promote greed. Just because someone is allowed to keep what they earn and not be forced to give it up does not make it greedy, its called Liberty and individual rights.
Again? I can't remember doing that before, so no, not again.
"you're a fucking drug user, probably an addict" -Nummi
" Are you fucking high? Oh, wait... you probably are." -Nummi
When you talk about drugs you sound like Mao Zedong. Again, you're not very fond of individual rights.
Assuming you know everything about me, and how my life is. That's rather stupid... Good, at least you're keeping this consistent.
You said you barley have enough for yourself, you obviously are on a computer with Internet, most likely in a house and you are not starving so you are fed. Assuming that you have shelter, food and and Internet access is not everything about your life.
A large ego, me? No. I just know who I am and what I'm capable of. I know my potential.
Way to sound pretentious.
Knowledge? I know enough to make the right conclusions. You on the other hand might have more knowledge, you might know more insignificant details, but you are completely blinded by all of it. You cannot see which of that knowledge is good and which is bad.
Having done a bit of research on a topic before I talk about it is not insignificant. I am not blinded by my knowledge, you just assume that because I am knowledge able of history and disagree with you that making the correlation between being knowledgeable and disagreeing with you is logical (which it is not)
It seems to me that whatever amount of knowledge one can have it does not make one smart unless the person has the ability to view it all objectively.
I do view it objectively, sometimes my initial belief is confirmed sometimes it is not, I have humility I can admit that. You on the other hand just decided that having knowledge makes you blind and ignorant.
I think I've said it before, I'm sure I have. I view the world unbiased and objectively. I look at everything as it is, not based on some previously made up rules that most of humanity likes following without questioning the rules themselves.
I don't look at everything by made up rules and I question most things about the world. I doubt we will ever agree on anything besides this, the world is currently fucked up at the moment, don't think I support our current world and society, i don't, I just happen to support currency and liberty.
However, money comes into play because money has value (when it is backed up by something) and that is why you can purchase resources with money.
Money has no value, as it is not a resource; it is not something humanity needs. But it does have an influence, a negative influence.
Yes, but those shops and supermarkets are privately owned.
And why should that change?
Farmers grow food, it is delivered to food stores, from there it goes to supermarket like places from where people can go and get it. No money involved.
There are many different parties operating in this.
So?
In a centralized economy you would have a non-private entity controlling all means of production and distributing everything.
Clear bias here.
You do not take into account that an economy of this style would be have to controlled and monitored, which is impossible to do.
You think current economy is not controlled and monitored? It is, and since currently there is money involved it requires even more controlling and monitoring than it would otherwise. The only difference that would be would be the lack of a medium of exchange. Or are you saying easier managing of economy than the current one is would be impossible? How can something easier and simpler be impossible?
It's not that I don't take into account, I take everything essential into account, it's that your opinions are strongly biased, as is very clear.
The economy is not a few people doing the same thing, it is billions of people make small transactions constantly, for your system to function it would all have to be centrally controlled by a single entity.
The economy is a lot of people doing different things while being in communication with each other. No money involved.
The centrally controlled thing... just stupid. If you think they should then be centrally controlled then currently they are also centrally controlled. Are they currently? No.
You are so biased. Once someone mentions "no money" you immediately think there is only one way it can be, and that is just so fucking stupid.
You just take money out of the equation and act like nothing will change.
Things would change, many things would. But not the way you like to think. It's as if you are comparing "no money" with what was in Soviet Russia, and other similar countries. In case you still haven't gotten it they had and they used money. There has never been a large society without money because the ones in control haven't allowed it to happen - it's called personal comfort, immaturity of mind, greed and stupidity and ignorance, all working together.
Your entire society is based on the idea that once you take money out of the equation everything will continue, that might work in an extremely basic theory that doesn't include any sense of reality, but ok, you can use it.
You actually think what you said is true? It's not, none of it is, it's all completely false.
My opinions are based, it all comes down to it, on logic. What are yours based on? On books and texts you have read and taken as true without really thinking whether what you read was actually true or not. That is immature. Grow up.
"based on the idea that once you take money out of the equation everything will continue, that might work in an extremely basic theory that doesn't include any sense of reality" With this you are saying that money is essential for our survival as a species, and from there it is easy to draw a line to every other living organism. Do you understand how idiotic that is? If that were true then every animal on this planet should not be alive. The whole planet should be dead. Money is not what keeps us alive, is not what keeps us going.
I could very easily say the same thing about your ideas and argument, considering you really can't support your view very well.
Sure you could say the same but in my case it would not be true at all. As to supporting views... you have yet to do that yourself. But since logic eludes you... you can't.
Marxism: A money less society with centralized means of production and common ownership. This sounds like your society, regardless of your hate for general definitions of types of economies, your idea is very similar to Marxism.
Oh, now I see. This is where your bias comes from. You literally cannot think without referring to things you've read somewhere. You don't seem to have an independent mind.
It doesn't promote greed.
Yet it does.
Just because someone is allowed to keep what they earn and not be forced to give it up does not make it greedy, its called Liberty and individual rights.
You can call it whatever you want. If you have something you do not need, especially if there is a lot of that something, and never will and still don't want to give it to someone who actually does need it then it is greed. Plain and simple greed.
Since universally there's no right or wrong, there's no purpose or meaning for anything none of it matters, but from our, humanity's and life's, perspective - from survival's perspective - right and wrong, what is best, are easily set and according to those money has no place anywhere.
If there was no money all you needed you'd get, for free, at any time. That would prevent pointless hoarding of resources that others would have a use for but can't because they cannot "afford" it.
"you're a fucking drug user, probably an addict" -Nummi
Your drug use thing, whatever it is... This wasn't one of them.
" Are you fucking high? Oh, wait... you probably are." -Nummi
First I came up with "Are you fucking high?", then occurred to me the many times you've noted being a drug user, and then I came up with "you probably are".
So you can go ahead shove you ridiculous drug thingy up your shithole. Biased moron (what makes this even better is that it's actually true...).
When you talk about drugs you sound like Mao Zedong. Again, you're not very fond of individual rights.
Talking about rights? You want to get into that too? I do not care about any rights, about any laws, or any "official" rules, because presently they are all far too messed up. So I use my own mind to view everything objectively, without having some crap as basis.
You said you barley have enough for yourself, you obviously are on a computer with Internet, most likely in a house and you are not starving so you are fed. Assuming that you have shelter, food and and Internet access is not everything about your life.
Wtf are you going about anyway?
A computer in current society is necessary, so is internet. A place to live at and food... of course no one needs those...
Everyone should be able to live a decent life. In a decent place, have healthy food, have decent clothes, and everything else. You think I have everything on a decent, sufficient level? No. Is it my fault? No. Whose then? It all comes down to money and those who from total ignorance and stupidity keep the current way alive.
Way to sound pretentious.
Pretentious? Yes you are.
Having done a bit of research on a topic before I talk about it is not insignificant.
Depends on the person. Some need to know more and still don't get it right, some need to know very little to get it completely right. This, economy, is very easy, the basics suffice.
I am not blinded by my knowledge, you just assume that because I am knowledge able of history
As I've said, somewhere. Having lots of knowledge on a subject does not make one smart. As is obvious.
and disagree with you that making the correlation between being knowledgeable and disagreeing with you is logical (which it is not)
This I don't see where you took... You seem to misinterpret from time to time. Shows you don't have an objective mind.
You on the other hand just decided that having knowledge makes you blind and ignorant.
You do misinterpret things. Thanks for clearing that out.
The being blinded by knowledge was about you, not about everyone. And ignorant? Where did you take that? You simply don't have the capacity to objectively view the knowledge you have.
I don't look at everything by made up rules and I question most things about the world.
You mean like the seeing a comment "no money" and immediately assuming it can never work, that it is impossible for it to work? Very... "objective" indeed.
Questioning is easy, form a question and it's done. But when comes time to answer...
currency and liberty.
So... you support greed and freedom? Currency is not of freedom, currency goes hand in hand with slavery, currency comes from greed and so does slavery. With currency there will always be people working for it, to get more of it to keep themselves alive and get a better life that in most cases will never come, and people who will use it to make other people work for them and preferably for as little as possible, none of it is freedom. Then prices go up, salaries go down, people struggle to have a decent life but the struggle itself takes away the possibility of having a decent life 'cause you always have to worry about money and how much of it you have and how much you will need, and then you get fired, or something else drastic happens - it's all a constant and never-ending mind-fuck. Then one day people wonder why they are so stressed, why they have so many health issues... it's all just so fucking ridiculous. And it just goes on and on and on. In the end all the products for everyone will be produced, there's sufficient amount of everything for everyone to have a decent life but... people don't and never will have the money to acquire a life worth all their trouble. Working for money is not a life worth existence.
Most of humanity does not think about more than their everyday lives, they only see what is right in front of them, they don't look around the corners to see the real truth, thus the ignorant populace keeps the stupid system alive.
Money has no value, as it is not a resource; it is not something humanity needs. But it does have an influence, a negative influence.
Wrong, money used to have value. How it worked was, banks would hold resources and give out bank notes (money) at any point in time you could go to the bank and turn your bank note for resources. Don't get all all money confused with the late 19th early 20th century idea of fiat currency (money backed up by no resource or economy)
You think current economy is not controlled and monitored? It is, and since currently there is money involved it requires even more controlling and monitoring than it would otherwise. The only difference that would be would be the lack of a medium of exchange.
1. Our current economy is monitored and regulated because we are trying to centrally plan it, I am strongly against this.
2. You need a medium of exchange for value for trade. Trade is giving something of value for something of value. If it is only going one way then the system will not work (ex: the store gives me food and I give nothing back)
Clear bias here.
If you want 9 billion people to all be able to function in a world without money or trade you would have to have it be planned.
The centrally controlled thing... just stupid. If you think they should then be centrally controlled then currently they are also centrally controlled. Are they currently? No.
If you would like to have the food store give away free food, the factories give free food to the super markets, the farmers give free food to the factories then all these companies getting their supplies for free then all those companies getting their supplies for free ect. it would have to be planned. Unless of course the economy only consist of 20 people.
You are so biased. Once someone mentions "no money" you immediately think there is only one way it can be, and that is just so fucking stupid.
No, there are other ways it can work, such as the batter system or a universal resource used for trade. Money just happens to be the most efficient way.
There has never been a large society without money because the ones in control haven't allowed it to happen - it's called personal comfort, immaturity of mind, greed and stupidity and ignorance, all working together.
It was allowed. Back when banks that issued currency were private you could choose what currency you used to trade, or, every one could have chose not to trade at all and just have a money free society.
My opinions are based, it all comes down to it, on logic. What are yours based on? On books and texts you have read and taken as true without really thinking whether what you read was actually true or not. That is immature. Grow up.
My theory is based on logic and knowledge, where as yours is based on how you wish the world would function. Thinking that anyone who has knowledge is illogical is immature, grow up.
Sure you could say the same but in my case it would not be true at all. As to supporting views... you have yet to do that yourself. But since logic eludes you... you can't.
Back to the "I'm logical you're not" speech, ah how childish.
Oh, now I see. This is where your bias comes from. You literally cannot think without referring to things you've read somewhere. You don't seem to have an independent mind.
That's like calling me biased and having an independent mind for calling a stream a river. IT is amusing how you can't actually support your arguments without your whole "uh, well, you're just biased" thing. How pathetic.
Yet it does.*8
People can trade resources voluntarily? That's greedy! - said no intelligent person ever.
You can call it whatever you want. If you have something you do not need, especially if there is a lot of that something, and never will and still don't want to give it to someone who actually does need it then it is greed. Plain and simple greed.
You don't NEED a computer, you just want one, give it away your greedy bastard. You have a home that could likely house more people than just you, give it away you greedy bastard! There are people without computer and housing, so open up your door and offer everyone free internet and housing... unless you're greedy of course.
Since universally there's no right or wrong, there's no purpose or meaning for anything none of it matters, but from our, humanity's and life's, perspective - from survival's perspective - right and wrong, what is best, are easily set and according to those money has no place anywhere.
It has a great place in trade. But then again, you see people voluntarily trading resources with a medium of exchange to be greedy.
If there was no money all you needed you'd get, for free, at any time.
Lets say I have coal and you wanted to buy coal, but you don't have enough money, you can't get it. Since money is backed up by resource, if you get rid of money you would either A. get the resources your money was backed up by and still not have enough to get the coal, or B. if its a fiat currency you end up with nothing, so you'd be even more screwed.
First I came up with "Are you fucking high?", then occurred to me the many times you've noted being a drug user, and then I came up with "you probably are".
I happen to smoke Marijuana every now and then, does that make a full blow addict how is always high? No, thats called being biased.
So you can go ahead shove you ridiculous drug thingy up your shithole. Biased moron
There is no drug that I am aware of that goes up your ass. Biased moron.
Talking about rights? You want to get into that too? I do not care about any rights, about any laws, or any "official" rules, because presently they are all far too messed up. So I use my own mind to view everything objectively, without having some crap as basis.
Its not about laws, its about rights. Lets say the government makes a law that says you can't speak badly about it, that infringes on my rights.
You think I have everything on a decent, sufficient level? No. Is it my fault? No. Whose then? It all comes down to money and those who from total ignorance and stupidity keep the current way alive.
If you have no skills and aren't all the bright, then yeah, having everything be free is probably the way to go.
Pretentious? Yes you are.
I am not the one calling every an idiot and saying how everyone is biased, stupid and can't think. That would be you, that is very pretentious.
Depends on the person. Some need to know more and still don't get it right, some need to know very little to get it completely right.
You don't much and you are completely wrong. So I guess you need to make a new category.
As I've said, somewhere. Having lots of knowledge on a subject does not make one smart. As is obvious.
It doesn't, however, having no knowledge doesn't make you open minded. Actually, for the most part people who have very little information are closed minded and just wall themselves in to their own view.
The being blinded by knowledge was about you, not about everyone. And ignorant? Where did you take that? You simply don't have the capacity to objectively view the knowledge you have.
Explain how I am blinded by knowledge. Because I happen to know a thing or two about how things work, where as you just simply act as if any knowledge contrary to your doctrine of belief makes me blind. You're like a kid, if someone doesn't agree with you, they are wrong. If they prove you wrong, they are indoctrinated and blind.
You mean like the seeing a comment "no money" and immediately assuming it can never work, that it is impossible for it to work? Very... "objective" indeed.
Let me clear this up, I never just assumed that it would never work. Yo assume that because that I just saw "no money" and then yelled at the top of my lungs "gasp, i've never heard of that before! it could never work!" you're not the first person I've debated currency with, you likely won't be the last. I didn't assume you were wrong, I just argued for why you were wrong.
Questioning is easy, form a question and it's done. But when comes time to answer...
I constantly question my beliefs just like most people who think about the world do. Just because I view this differently you than you does not mean in anyway that I don't ask questions to myself.
So... you support greed and freedom? Currency is not of freedom, currency goes hand in hand with slavery, currency comes from greed and so does slavery.
Actually, slavery is an almost moneyless system. Instead of paying your workers you just provide them with food. Money =/= greed, greed = greed.
you always have to worry about money and how much of it you have and how much you will need
if there was no money you would be worrying about how many resources you have and how many you will need.
In the end all the products for everyone will be produced, there's sufficient amount of everything for everyone to have a decent life but... people don't and never will have the money to acquire a life worth all their trouble. Working for money is not a life worth existence.
Working for money is like working for anything else. Instead of getting food, a home and anything else you need you get the resources to get these things. Someone gives you enough money for a house, its not "oh shit, all I have is this paper" you say "fuck yeah, I can get a house"
You won't be able to make Nummi see reason. Believe me i have tried in the past. People like him are idealists, who see the world as they want it to be, not how it is.
1. Our current economy is monitored and regulated because we are trying to centrally plan it, I am strongly against this.
Against it from bias, not objectiveness. You don't think about all possibilities, you only regard to the biased texts you've read and heard. Central planning could work... you are so narrow-minded there's no other point for this "debate" but entertainment.
You need a medium of exchange for value for trade.
And trade is not necessary.
(ex: the store gives me food and I give nothing back)
You give back your time in being an important link in the progress of humanity, either by producing something or doing any job.
Shortsighted and narrow-minded. You cannot see the whole picture, yet think you are right. Pathetic.
If you want 9 billion people to all be able to function in a world without money or trade you would have to have it be planned.
Even now things are planned.
If you would like to have the food store give away free food, the factories give free food to the super markets, the farmers give free food to the factories then all these companies getting their supplies for free then all those companies getting their supplies for free ect. it would have to be planned. Unless of course the economy only consist of 20 people.
Shortsighted, narrow-minded, and stupid too. Oh, and biased.
It would not have to be planned any more than it currently is. In fact it would be less planned, as there's no inclusion of money.
Money just happens to be the most efficient way.
Wrong, it happens to be kept alive by ignorance and greed. And it also happens to be the world you were born in and raised in and thus brainwashed into thinking this is the only one that can work and into thinking this is the best one. Well, you're dead wrong; those who taught you and those who wrote the texts you read were also.
The most efficient would be a system without trade. I've explained enough, with simple logic you lack for understanding.
It was allowed. Back when banks that issued currency were private you could choose what currency you used to trade, or, every one could have chose not to trade at all and just have a money free society.
As I said, I do not care about the past. Also seems to me you're not getting the fact that in the past things were different.
My theory is based on logic and knowledge, where as yours is based on how you wish the world would function. Thinking that anyone who has knowledge is illogical is immature, grow up.
Your theory is based on prejudice and apparently the incapability to think larger, bigger. You literally cannot see the world as it is, you cannot see all aspects of it, you cannot analyze it and make the right conclusions. And that's all bad for you and those who actually listen to you.
As I've said, knowledge alone does not make one smart. You think highly religious people don't have knowledge? They do, about their idiotic religion. Are they smart? Oh fuck no.
Back to the "I'm logical you're not" speech, ah how childish.
How is observation and conclusion childish?
IT is amusing how you can't actually support your arguments without your whole "uh, well, you're just biased" thing. How pathetic.
I have supported my arguments with logic. You're the one whose mind is not straight and thus cannot understand.
You don't NEED a computer, you just want one, give it away your greedy bastard. You have a home that could likely house more people than just you, give it away you greedy bastard! There are people without computer and housing, so open up your door and offer everyone free internet and housing... unless you're greedy of course.
This is really immature...
Those are life's necessities. What is necessary is not of greed. Those things I need, literally need.
If you think I do not need them then... Are you wearing clothes? You don't need clothes, you can live without. The building you use for living in, you do not need it. Go back to the wild, naked, hunt for food and live your life of no "greed".
Human progress - something you cannot fathom.
It has a great place in trade. But then again, you see people voluntarily trading resources with a medium of exchange to be greedy.
Again interpreting things they way you want not the way they are?
All I said about a medium of exchange is that it is not necessary, that, in fact, it is negative to humanity's progress, compared to what could be. And that it promotes greed.
Short, narrow, and so fucking stupid - your mind.
Lets say I have coal and you wanted to buy coal, but you don't have enough money, you can't get it.
I wasn't talking about wants, I was talking about needs.
Since money is backed up by resource, if you get rid of money you would either A. get the resources your money was backed up by and still not have enough to get the coal, or B. if its a fiat currency you end up with nothing, so you'd be even more screwed.
You are truly stupid. I have explained how it would be with no money. Really not my problem you lack enough logic. It's like fussing with a religious lunatic stuck with idiotic beliefs and unwilling to learn.
No money - you get the coal for free. The one you got the coal from gets something, anything, he needs from others for free. Everyone gets anything they need from anyone for free. The end.
I happen to smoke Marijuana every now and then, does that make a full blow addict how is always high? No, thats called being biased.
And again interpreting things they way you want to not the way they are. Nice, at least you're keeping your pathetic self consistent.
There is no drug that I am aware of that goes up your ass. Biased moron.
I'm sure you should be able to think of some, after all... your're the drug user here. Biased moron.
You calling me biased moron back wasn't effective at all... it was weak.
If you have no skills and aren't all the bright, then yeah, having everything be free is probably the way to go.
Talking about things you literally know nothing about. Keep that up.
I am not the one calling every an idiot and saying how everyone is biased, stupid and can't think. That would be you, that is very pretentious.
Again interpreting things the way you want to... I never said everyone. Just you and very many others others.
You don't much and you are completely wrong.
Don't much what?
Completely wrong not at all. What I said is true, whether you like it or not. I've seen it many times in real life.
It doesn't, however, having no knowledge doesn't make you open minded. Actually, for the most part people who have very little information are closed minded and just wall themselves in to their own view.
Open minded enough. Why should I keep hoarding pointless knowledge once it is clear it is of no positive use? It wouldn't be smart at all. Why waste my time on something I will never need, or something that will never be of any good use?
Explain how I am blinded by knowledge. Because I happen to know a thing or two about how things work, where as you just simply act as if any knowledge contrary to your doctrine of belief makes me blind. You're like a kid, if someone doesn't agree with you, they are wrong. If they prove you wrong, they are indoctrinated and blind.
How? You can't see the world objectively, that's how.
If someone doesn't agree with me then someone doesn't agree with me. If someone says something stupid and just dead wrong then they are wrong. It has nothing to do with my opinions.
I don't have beliefs.
You haven't proven me wrong. Rather the opposite by not giving logical and objective explanation why you should be right.
Let me clear this up, I never just assumed that it would never work.
Yet you speak as if it would never work. As if it is impossible.
Yo assume that because that I just saw "no money" and then yelled at the top of my lungs "gasp, i've never heard of that before! it could never work!"
Again interpreting the way you want to...
you're not the first person I've debated currency with, you likely won't be the last. I didn't assume you were wrong, I just argued for why you were wrong.'
I'm not wrong. But you sure are and also are unwilling to let go your false beliefs.
I constantly question my beliefs just like most people who think about the world do. Just because I view this differently you than you does not mean in anyway that I don't ask questions to myself.
Exactly my point and exactly why I said "Questioning is easy, form a question and it's done. But when comes time to answer..."
Actually, slavery is an almost moneyless system. Instead of paying your workers you just provide them with food.
A system where the workers do not decide over their own lives. A system where they are forced to work by threats to life, or with torture or any punishment.
A very weak attempt at comparing.
if there was no money you would be worrying about how many resources you have and how many you will need.
You think currently this is not necessary? You do not look at money and how much of it you have, you look at how much resources you need. And however much they cost that much they cost.
Just because you have lots of money does not mean you can buy that much resources with it.
Working for money is like working for anything else.
Yet it is not.
Instead of getting food, a home and anything else you need you get the resources to get these things.
If you work anyway... then what is the point of getting a "permission" to get what you need?
Someone gives you enough money for a house, its not "oh shit, all I have is this paper" you say "fuck yeah, I can get a house"
I wouldn't say that.
As I said, the products and resource are and will always be there, ready for use. They are necessary. Why hinder the use of something that is needed?
What do you think I would do in a situation where I was given the chance to get all the money in existence versus getting rid of it all instead?
1. Not all currency is fiat. Money was always backed up by resources until the late 1800's I know you don't care about the past and shrug off any knowledge that you don't want to hear, but its a fact: For most of human history money has had REAL value backed up by REAL resources. Not all money is worthless.
2. Saying "humanities progress" (which you have not even defined) does not make your means just. F=Also, this would greatly vary from person to person.
3. You don't need money to horde and you don't need money to be greedy. Money does not promote greed, there will always be greed as long as there are resources, its human nature.
4. Instead of only looking in at what you see in your delusional world, try actually be logical (and understanding money before you call for its end)
Why shorten it so much? Well, because its 5am and I'm tired.
>"Farmers grow food, it is delivered to food stores, from there it goes to supermarket like places from where people can go and get it. No money involved."
What incentive does the farmer have, to produce the food, the loaders, to load, the driver to deliver, or the store owner to supervise, all this food?
If he doesn't produce it the ones who produce other things, like clothes or scientists who do their important work, can't have food to survive, and if they cannot survive or have to struggle themselves to get food they cannot make those clothes or new discoveries. Production of goods is a necessity, it has to be done, it is not dictated by money that they must be produced, without them we would have nothing, without production everything we currently have would simply die. Just as important would be all others.
The incentive would be that and also the fact that very many people's lives depend on that person. The farmer and others would literally be extremely important persons. Right now all that which really is important is clouded by money as if it's all something totally insignificant.
As to what they get for their time and effort is included in the above.
And you think that the existence of money is the only thing that keeps everyone from laboring, without compensation, for the good of others?
What about those in society who do not care for the welfare of others, only themselves? Do they get to take the food and other goods for free, without producing any useful products?
What about those in society who do not care for the welfare of others, only themselves? Do they get to take the food and other goods for free, without producing any useful products?
Then they are worthless, are they not?
Anyway, because a small portion contradicts the majority is a reason good enough to make the system according to what they are like? No.
As I've said many times, survival and progress; continuance and advancement. Negative characteristics like that should be rooted out. Sounds harsh, doesn't it? Yet it is true.
As I've said many times, survival and progress; continuance and advancement. Negative characteristics like that should be rooted out. Sounds harsh, doesn't it? Yet it is true.
I'm interested in how you would "root them out" and what you would do with those who were "rooted out".
Anyway, because a small portion contradicts the majority is a reason good enough to make the system according to what they are like? No.
At present, the majority of humans believe and engage in rational self interest. This system has allowed the world to prosper to the degree that since capitalism was introduced, common people can live better than the wealthiest of 20 years before.
The only way for your system to work is to mandate that a person labor for some arbitrary minimum, according to what some central authority deems is appropriate, and that he be able to take an arbitrary allotment of resources, according to what that authority deems are his needs. Additionally, you have removed the communication system upon which such a large production system would rely (the price system) to calculate the needs of those being supplied.
This is the post-socialist communism that Marx wrote would inevitably replace socialism. It removes the real incentives to produce, in favor of some fantasy mental control of the populous through mandatory "honorable service to the whole".
It is, put simply, slavery in another guise.
What is the rationale for switching to your system?
We already have a system where those who are truly worthless to society, may be rooted out, by the voluntary cooperation of others, without those who cooperate even knowing one another. Where the incentive to produce wealth for society's use is great, because to do so will bring more wealth to himself, according to the degree to which he is willing to labor.
No, everything has a price, because resources are finite, and the price system is the most efficient method for society to decide the most efficient use of those scarce resources.
No, everything has a price, because resources are finite, and the price system is the most efficient method for society to decide the most efficient use of those scarce resources.
Sure everything has a price presently. Sure it all works great on paper... but the present system is not effective at all; on paper it is one thing but in reality it is something entirely different. The most efficient way is without having a price on anything, since you clearly lack the will and desire, and probably the capacity, to think on that level I'm not gonna explain it all again, after all, the point is to use your own mind, objectively and rationally, not simply say this and that without first thinking things through.
The most efficient use for resource is using them if needed, not putting a price to them someone has to pay first to begin using them. The fact is, if they are needed then they are needed and should be immediately available - this is the most efficient way; no hindering factors put in place by the rules of the system itself.
Who decides what form that "progress" should take?
The only form that matters is derived with survival and advancement of us all in mind, not based on something as idiotic as money. Right now almost everyone only thinks about money, it's basically what they live for - money.
-Who decides who should produce the resources (means) to bring about that end?
Seriously, wtf are you going about?
If no one produces anything, if no one works for our continuance, then, even presently, everything would fall apart. Nice to not use your own mind...
Gratuitous assertion, no supporting argument. Also Argument from intimidation.
And yours are?
I know one for certain, you are strongly biased. You grew up in this world, with the current way of things and you cannot think outside of it, you cannot imagine something else, something bigger, something better. Like most others. Sad.
Every scarce resource does, and will always have a price, either in money, time, effort, etc. Monetary price is just the most efficient way to determine profit, and to communicate demand.
but the present system is not effective at all; on paper it is one thing but in reality it is something entirely different.
If by "the present system" you mean "using a medium of exchange", or even "trading resources" then "the present system" has allowed man to advance beyond the hunter-gatherer stage. I would call that pretty darned effective.
The most efficient way is without having a price on anything,
I notice that you STILL have yet to describe the mechanisms by which this system would work, other than the assertion that it would just happen, because it would need to be that way.
since you clearly lack the will and desire, and probably the capacity, to think on that level I'm not gonna explain it all again,
Of course, you aren't going to explain it again, that would require you explaining it in the first place, which you haven't.
after all, the point is to use your own mind, objectively and rationally, not simply say this and that without first thinking things through.
I would encourage you to take your own advice.
The only form that matters is derived with survival and advancement of us all in mind, not based on something as idiotic as money. Right now almost everyone only thinks about money, it's basically what they live for - money.
You didn't answer my question. WHO decides what form that "progress" should take? You only told me what form YOU believe. Should it be YOU who decides, for the rest of us, what "progress" is?
Survival and advancement... Trade and profit took us from pooping in the bushes, to supercomputers.
Seriously, wtf are you going about?
If no one produces anything, if no one works for our continuance, then, even presently, everything would fall apart.
So long as people produce for their own benefit and trade for that which they cannot produce, the system works and has worked since man began to trade.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -Adam Smith
And yours are?
I have asserted that the price system, made more efficient by a medium of exchange, within a free market, is a communication system whereby the demands of consumers are made known to producers; that this communication enables producers to reduce the waste of scarce resources, by only using those resources necessary to fill those demands.
In contrast, you have asserted that money and even trade are unnecessary, that people will just produce, and consume as needed. You have offered no evidence, logical or empirical, to demonstrate that the producers of goods will be able to ascertain the needs of the consumers, other than to posit that they will do so, because they do so at present.
This is the equivalent of me asking how astronauts will breathe in space, and you explaining that they will breathe in space, because they breathe on the earth. Just as air is what makes breathing possible, the price system is what makes the knowledge of consumer demand possible. If you have a different way to communicate that information, you have yet to explain how it would work.
i can not believe people are choosing other options besides free health care. of course health care should be free. how could you as a doctor not help a human bean in need of help? are you kidding? we should have a universal law of free health care. i don't think people realize that as soon as you are born on this earth you become part of a unit, and here we are crumbling to shit because people decide is a great idea to separate each other in groups because of race or income or whatever. it is ridiculous that after thousands of years, generation after generation we still cant freaking decide if its a good idea to help each other. let me make it simpler for you. we need to help each other, it should not be a choice.
"WAAAAAGH BUT CHATTURGHA, THAT'LL MAKE PEOPLE MOOCH OFF TAXPAYERS."
I don't care. I'm a tax payer and I couldn't give two shits. If someone is comfortable living pitifully and miserably by my standards, it's not my place to judge them differently then anyone else. And for the most part, I don't think there is such a thing as a 'moocher' in the lower class even though I supposedly met someone like that in my childhood.
This is because I think that as long as you are homeless, about to be homeless, physically suffering, have loved ones whom are physically suffering, going hungry on some weeks, yada yada... then you'd have to be clinically insane to be comfortable living in such a state. And if you're not comfortable living in such a state, you're either presently trying to get yourself up to a more liveable state of existence, or you've already tried doing that so much that you are at your wits end and have given up.
Either way, I inevitably do not believe that the poor are moochers for getting handouts. I think quality of life should be determined by A. If you're a human being or not, B. How hard you work, and C. How much you suffer. Some people are all suffering and no work... can you really blame them? Suffering sort of, you know, takes away your ability to be psychologically and/or physically stable enough to work. And even then, people who have supposedly 'given up' are generally working to not suffer, even if they don't seem to be working to pull themselves out of poverty.
Now, you could retort by claiming that people who suffer deserve it because they made mistakes. Well, who are you to judge other people's suffering as just? It's not within our power as human beings to literally experience the same agony as other human beings, but we naturally make assumptions that said suffering is horrible; this is called empathy. Why develop feelings of empathy, even for complete strangers, if we were meant to judge people's suffering as being just?
Obviously, we weren't. For so many of you, if you made mistakes that made you suffer enough, there would always be a point in which would you break, and realize that you don't deserve the agony you are getting. So what you fail to infer is that other people are pretty much exactly the same, but indiscernible in truth. Since we can assume that people are the same as us, as in they experience suffering, but we cannot literally judge what their suffering is, we can only come to the conclusion that a person is suffering as much as they appear or say.
As in, we cannot judge how much a person suffers, and since it's very possible to suffer more then for what you supposedly 'deserve', we have no way of knowing if a person deserves a damn thing of what they have to put up with. Since we cannot judge the suffering of others by ourselves, that means we cannot judge what they may have done that supposedly resulted in their suffering.
Furthermore, we cannot judge how much someone should be punished for something. If someone does something wrong, and you cannot truly interpret by yourself how they experience agony, then setting a standard punishment is wrong, as it runs the very real risk of unjustly damaging someone. You don't imprison the murderer to punish him, you imprison the murderer to stop him from hurting other people.
In conclusion, if you have the audacity to judge others suffering and tell them, to their face, they deserve it, without any empirical context, then you are an apathetic faggot whom is a detriment to the human race. If ten people like you were to suddenly die, I would feel just as bad as if ten people like me were to suddenly die, because I am a better person then you, and I have the foresight to understand that caring for people is quintessential to human existence. You not understanding or agreeing with this doesn't make me care for you less, but it does make you a bad, or not very a good, person.
With that all explained, I will reiterate: health care should be free for people who cannot afford it. Why? Because they are not lazy, you douche pickle. They are unfortunate and suffering people who don't deserve to be treated like garbage by someone more fortunate then they. Also, they are human beings, and humans beings deserve a minimum quality of life... and if we are ever to become an empathetic, caring, loving society, truly, then we much start by improving the quality of life for the less fortunate.
Wow, what a pointless rant? Thanks for you opinion.
Health care can be free to those who want to voluntarily for it, not by force through your greatest and dearest friend, government. Oh wait, this already exists, they are charities.
Basically, government should alleviate suffering because other economic policies epically failed, which include all government triangular intervention.
The only reason economic policies fail time and time again is because international government allows free market to run rampant without any regard for all the damage caused by someone gaining hundreds of billions of dollars.
Ours is no different. They want to protect it, and while it's not all a bad idea to protect, it doesn't have enough inhibitors to prevent unmitigated greed. Thus, people go homeless and starve to death, and Africa remains socially unchanged while foreign companies strip away all it's resources.
Is this appeal to your own form of idealism inherent of just giving up on people whom suffer? Absolutely not. People aren't suffering right now because the big bad 1st world government is a horrible, terrorizing thing. People are suffering right now because someone, somewhere, made a mistake at some point. It doesn't matter who or what did it. It's just the job of a morally sound state to prevent the suffering that was caused.
Even if this ridiculous idea that economic policies fail due to international government, it is all more reason to abolish all forms of government including international.
You must've not read what I wrote if that's where your thoughts led.
It's the fault of international government because international government freely trades, for the most part. Aside from totalitarian regimes scattered randomly throughout the world, international trade is basically unmitigated.
Since it's moreover unmitigated, greed is unmitigated. Since greed is unmitigated, corporatism ruins the global economy and causes suffering all across it, not just here in the United States.
Meaning, the problem isn't too much control, it's the lack thereof. Abolishing all government has nothing to do with solving this.
Paid for by everyone who pays taxes. So... everyone.
But considering taxes are just national rent since the state owns the land, it's not really everyone paying for it. It's the state. They're just using the income they receive from their 'tenants'.
Except instead of using it for themselves, in this case, they're using it to make their land more habitable for people. Then more tenants pay more rent and then they use their additional income to make more habitable for even more tenants, and so on, and so on.
I'm for everyone being equal and free as long as nobody is getting harmed in the process. That's sort of the point of law, at least in the United States. To stop people from suffering in wake of everyone being so incredibly free. We kinda fought a war over this issue; you know, the Civil War? A war fought between the freedom to harm people and the order to stop people from harming others.
Wealth does not always directly cause suffering in this country, but wealth is directly related to the severity of an individual's suffering. If someone is homeless, they generally did not choose to be. If someone whom is very wealthy gets severely ill, they have the wealth to get better fairly easily. Middle class families constantly suffer the stress of either trying too become wealthy or trying to not become homeless. I don't think a protection of rights should be different between the classes, but I think the mitigation of suffering should be made up to bridge the gap between people who can pay to not suffer and people whom cannot pay to not suffer.
Nothing about what I said above seems to conflict with the 14th amendment. But, neither you or I are Judges, therefore neither of us can really judge the 14th amendment properly. So, I don't really care about what the amendments specifically say, since I am not on the Supreme Court. I care about what seems right and what seems wrong.
I wonder where the people who are against single-payer or government-paid healthcare live? What states?
Because the single largest objection seems to be to use the collective pool of money (taxes) to pay for everyone's health care. Like it violates some sacred right or some sacred ideal.
Why did I ask you what state you live in? Because if you live in Alabama or Mississippi or Indiana or Iowa, for example, then you get more in federal dollars than you contribute to the federal coffers. Which means that I, who live in California--where we send more to the IRS than we get back in federal funding--am basically paying for your stop signs and freeways.
That's right. Your highways are free for you because you aren't paying for them. I am. New Yorkers are. I say this not to gloat, but to show you through example how tax dollars work. AND to let you know that I don't mind paying for your stop signs. I wouldn't mind paying for your health care, either--so long as we could all have it.
I would bet a fat man that everyone here who objects to single-payer like they have in Canada is a white male from a red state......
I believe that health care should be free. But to some extent obviously. First of all the poor should have free healcare or atleast the ones with minimum wage. If not then atleast a high discount rate. Taxes are such a bum and ,for me, not being used to its fullest. Through this, the taxes would be used much more properly. The government will pay the doctors through the taxes. Then the surgeries would be the extra fee that should be paid by the patient. In short, free or discounted to the poor, normal to the rich.
Health-care is not free, but the point of Universal Medicare is to make it easier to swallow. I don't mind paying a few cents more so I don't get hit by a 50 000 dollar medical bill.
I think that health care must be free. However, before making it free, the government have to pay attention on a system in hospitals. Because, if health care will be free, a lot of patients will come to hospitals and it will be very difficult to wait one's turn, especially if you need a help right now, but there are many people who came before you and also wait.
Additionally, in my country (I do not know about others) after private clinics were opened, doctors do not pay attention to patients unless he or she pays.
I would rather take my own fate into my hands than rely on the government. When companies compete, quality of life improves. What should be improved is health insurance, not making health care in general 'free'. Someone will always have to pay for it, after all. If not with money, then with blood, sweat, and tears.
I think it should be pay to live, because we shouldn't only think of ourselves. I mean, doctors also have to pay for things and provide for their family's needs. If we dont pay them, then they would also not be able to support their family. People get sick all the time, if there are no doctors who want to work, because obviously, there would be no one to pay them anymore, then no one would get better anymore.
Okay Cambriel, your argument is just stupid. Not only is it stupid, it does not deal with the question. The question is not whether doctors should get paid, it's who should pay the health care bills.
Yeah, i also dealt with the question, and it wasn't stupid though. I gave examples why we should pay for the treatment that we get, and that's why the doctors' payment was mentioned. I backed up my argument with reasons. There are broader horizons on why we should pay. And my argument was also about who should pay the health care bills.. WHY? Because in order to pay for that treatment, then you should have a reason to do so. And thats the reason I gave why people should pay for their treatment.
Now, let me tell you why your argument is also stupid
First, people would not upvote me if they did not see my reason in my argument. Thus, I had two points now. Second, get a clue... what kind of clue do you want me to get when I clearly have something to say about my argument? Third, before calling someone stupid try to think if your argument is stupid enough.
Health care has improved a lot. Our life styles have improved and people are living longer. The problem, however, is that people who normally would have died due to stupidity are being kept alive by government programs funded by tax payers. We have taken Darwinism out of society. As a result, the world is over populated and we now face global warming. We could ease global warming if we had less people on the planet releasing green house gasses. We could fix over population by putting Darwinism back into society and letting people die off. If you can't pay your hospital bills, then you probably don't make enough money because you probably don't have a good job because you're probably not educated enough and you're probably being subsidized with tax payer money. Stupid people would have died off in the old days thanks to natural selection (the strongest survive). If we let the weak die off, the human species as a whole would benefit and become stronger. If people cannot pay their hospital bills, they should die off so the rest of us can benefit ;)
The labels of the "sides" of this debate are a false dichotomy. They should be "Someone else pays for my health care" vs. " I pay for my health care".
You are not "paying to live" you are merely NOT being given resources to which you have no valid claim.
You are not "denying" shelter to the homeless, when you refuse to allow strangers to live in your house, you are exercising your exclusive right to use a resource which you have earned.
Health care is a service, not a right. To claim the right to the service of others is to advocate slavery, even if only in small steps.
Free-health care is one of those things that sounds good, but in reality can not work, at least no in America at the moment, for a number of reasons.
We got a huge financial crisis going on right now, so it would be for the best not to add expenses to the federal budget (which for the record doesn't exist).
Another problem is a more practical one. We don't have enough doctors to handle the huge increase in patients that would result from free-health care, and none of the proposed plans even mention a way to handle this. It would just be giving more work to doctors for lower pay.
Another problem is the inflation of health care. Most of your hospital bill is just helping cover the expenses of other patients who could not afford it, so the bill has been increased. People seem to forget that while hospitals provide an important service, they are still businesses and need to make a profit.
people need to understand that if we push the government to continue to stretch it's budget even more, it eventually won't be able to help anyone. Lets get to a more stable place economically wise before we begin discussing proposals like universal health care.
Socialized medicine doesn't work as great as many protractors claim in a debate versus an american. Because of the collective nature there's a disincentive to provide one's best. That's probably why those who are covered by healthcare in the US has access to the world's best
I think medical companies should stop cornholing hospitals on prices so they can stop cornholing us on prices, and I think doctors should settle for less pay. But that is definitely not going to happen.
When you are relying on the government you can never move forward in your life. Because you are always pro government. You never experience real struggle because you're getting so much help. And with that help it's putting the American government to shame because of all the money we are investing into health care